Balancing Accountability in a Multilateral Cross-Sector Collaboration: A University-Community Research Partnership in a Promise Neighborhood Setting

• In Event: 46.075 - Data Use and inquiry in Research-Practice Partnerships: Insights From Four Case Examples

Abstract

Objectives

Tensions and conflicts are inherent in university-community partnerships, but few studies closely examine how members respond to these conflicts, and how it, in turn shapes practice and relationships. This descriptive case analysis provides evidence about the implementation and data use process, as well as the partnership dynamics within an urban Promise Neighborhood initiative. Specifically, we examine how grantees and their partners (i.e., their network of community-based organizations) negotiate tensions between federal accountability demands with the need for more relevant and actionable information. This case offers lessons that can improve collaborative planning within the context of Promise Neighborhoods, and sheds light on the complexity of these initiatives—“the relationships they offer, the predicaments they present, and their possibilities for action” (Baum, 2000, p. 36).

Framework

Based on the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ), the U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) Promise Neighborhood Initiative is a place-based five-year effort designed to build a holistic, cradle-to-career continuum of supports to improve youth outcomes. Evidence indicates that HCZ schools have reduced the achievement gap (Dobbie & Fryer, 2011) to levels similar to other charter schools not embedded in a broad neighborhood program (Croft & Whitehurst, 2010). Still, less is known about HCZ’s community-based approach (Hanson, 2013), and studies on the implementation and data use process of Promise Neighborhoods are only still emerging. Thus, understanding the science behind the development and implementation of Promise Neighborhoods, including the organizational challenges encountered by community partners as they carry out the initiative, is critical as the number of Promise Neighborhoods continue to grow.

The Present Study

We investigate tensions encountered during the early part of the Implementation Phase—a five-year period wherein grantees, with considerable support from their partners (i.e., their network of community-based organizations), are required by the federal government to collect information on 15 Government Performance and Results Act indicators. Most indicators were distal in nature such as students’ college enrollment rates, and had less to do with improving current implementation practices.

Differential accountability requirements can often lead to confusion and frustration within university-community partnerships (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002). Requiring considerable time and effort, grantees and partners felt burdened by the collection of these distal indicators. They desired more “rigorous research” (Gutiérrez & Penuel, 2014) that yielded context-specific, present-day information focused on specific problems of practice (Coburn et al., 2013), such as the number and combination of services being accessed by families taking part in the initiative. This information was of greater significance to grantees because it was timely and actionable, and funding was available to support change efforts that could refine coordination and delivery of services.

Significance

Tensions and conflicts within university-community partnerships create opportunities to discover what partners care about and expect from each other, how they frame issues, and how their roles and responsibilities shape their priorities, problem-solving strategies, and decision making. Understanding how Promise Neighborhood partners negotiate accountability challenges, divergent expectations, and the desire for more real-time implementation information offers a significant contribution to the literature on these federal initiatives.

Authors

• Monika Sanchez, Thrive Washington

• Laurel Sipes, Stanford University